The rougher and readier cousin of Marketing magazine. You'll find ideas, gossip, commentary and a touch of cynicism as we flex our journalistic muscles beyond the constraints of our monthly mag.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Is online mag given the flick before it began?

Remember FLICK magazine, the new design magazine we wrote about a few weeks ago launching an online version before its hard copy? Its future maybe in doubt after a successful legal case was brought against it by the owners of TAXI Design.

Turns out the mag has been sued by Hills Creative Arts (owners of TAXI Design Network) for copyright infringement and has been shut down.

Hills Creative Arts took offence at Flick’s website and media kit which carried a few lines of material describing Flick’s business, which was apparently copyrighted on www.designtaxi.com.

I spoke to the owner of Flick Design’s website, Kyle Neo, who has had to issue email apologies to TAXI to his contacts, and has had to bear damages and TAXI’s legal costs.

Neo said the material was submitted to him by contributors and he was unaware it was copyrighted material, and wished TAXI had contacted before taking legal action.

He sounded dejected but brave, and will now concentrate on his online design business while contemplating the viability of re-starting Flick magazine in the future.

Neo's letter of apology appears below:

I, Neo Kai Fu, acknowledge that I have infringed the copyright of TAXI Design Network’s website at www.designtaxi.com by carrying the copyrighted material on the website of Flick Design, at www.flickdesignmag.com and media kit.

I unreservedly apologise to TAXI Design Network and all advertisers who have received our media kits carrying the infringing materials.

I have agreed to pay Hills Creative Arts Pte Ltd, the creator and owner of TAXI Design Network, for the costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter.

5 comments:

While I sympathise with Kyle Neo, whose mistake seems genuine and his lesson learnt, for some fly-by-night publishers it’s not a matter of an honest slip-up.

In a classic breach of Copyright, I know for a fact, one local title that simply hi-res scanned their competitive magazine’s creative design. Minimal cosmetic changes were made and the advert in question was published as if the thieves had created it themselves...!!

For some unscrupulous outfits, it’s not a matter of what they learnt at school, why hell, it’s not even a matter of ethics or being able to sleep at night. Just cutting corners and saving money at anyone’s expense is sadly the only way they know.

In this case, only legal action stopped them in their tracks, otherwise this blatant contravening of Copyright would have continued unabated...

It’s a sad indictment of our media industry when honest publishers have to be warned to keep a lookout, for there always seems to be a bandit ready to rip off their creativity and design.

I guess if you read the blog carefully, It's by a contrived accident that the person received the copyrighted material from a contributor thus the conclusion is never accept anything that is free in this world...or how do you define whether the material is copyrighted? In this century, Originality is hard to come by...everything is all modifiy from something to something. It's all been here and done that. That's why we have the Next Julia Robert or this furniture looks similar to another...